Beth+v.+Van+Clay

Eric Miller Kristee Glace 282 F.3d 493 BETH B. and Susan and Tom B., individually and as next friends of Beth B., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mark VAN CLAY, individually and in his official capacity as superintendent, and Lake Bluff School District #65, Defendants-Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued January 17, 2002. Decided March 5, 2002. Thirteen-year-old Beth B. and her parents appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Lake Bluff School District, affirming an administrative decision that upheld the school district's recommendation to place Beth in a special education classroom. Beth is severely mentally and physically challenged. Her parents have long been fighting a battle to keep her in the regular education classroom: In 1997, the school district first recommended that Beth continue her schooling in a special education, or Educational Life Skills ("ELS"), program — a placement with which her parents disagreed. When it became clear that they and the district could not reach a mutually satisfactory solution, they requested a due process hearing under § 1415(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA," or "the Act"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 //et seq.//
 * Background**

The hearing commenced on October 25, 1999; in May 2000, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the school district. Beth has Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that almost exclusively affects girls. It results in severe disabilities, both cognitive and physical. Beth is nonverbal; she uses an instrument called an eye gaze, a board with various pictures and symbols that she singles out with eye contact, to communicate her wants and needs, as well as other communication devices that allow her to choose among symbols or to hear messages recorded by others. She relies on a wheelchair for mobility. She, like nearly all Rett sufferers, has an extreme lack of control over body movement. Although her mental capacity is difficult to assess precisely, due to her extreme communicative and motor impairments, some experts contend that she has the cognitive ability of a twelve-to-eighteen-month old infant. She is unable to read or recognize numbers. The court found that the school district's recommendation to place Beth in an ELS classroom does not violate the IDEA.
 * Decision**

This court case demonstrates one of the few of many conflicts that teachers must deal with when educating children. Although the majority of teachers have the best interest of their students in mind, some parents are too ignorant to decide what is best for their child even though evidence clearly shows no progress is being made in the current environment. The court’s ability to rule in favor of what is clearly more beneficial for any student is a time and life saver when it comes to a parent’s clouded judgment.
 * Implications**

(True/False) Parents always know what is best and use clear judgment when deciding their child’s future.
 * Question**


 * United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit**
 * Beth V. Van Clay**

A seventh-grader at Lake Bluff Middle School, Beth, is a student with a disablility called Rhett Syndrome. Rhett Syndrome is a neurological disorder that mostly affects girls. This disorder causes severe cognitive and physical disabilities. Beth, who is nonverbal, uses an eye gaze ( a board with pictures and symbols) to communicate. She also uses a wheelchair for mobility. Her mental capacity, although difficult to assess, is that of a twelve to eighteen-month old infant. Other specialists estimate that her abilities are that of a four to six-year old. Beth is unable to read or recognize numbers. For seven years, Beth has been educated in a regular classroom. She is assisted daily by a one-on-one aid at all times. Her curriculum is specialized and is tied to the subject matter taught. Currently, she is at pre-school level. The school district, after a review of her IEP, recommended that she be placed in an ELS setting. Lake Bluff district does not have a special education environment. The ELS program, which is set in another district, would assist students between the ages of six and twelve and would serve students with mild, moderate, or severe handicaps. Students that are in the program would be mainstreamed with regular education students for subjects such as music, art, library, computer, and certain social studies and science classes. The ELS students would also go to lunch, recess, assemblies, and field trips with regular education students. Regular education students would also be mainstreamed into ELS classrooms too. Beth's parents disagreed with the district's decision and requested a due process review under IDEA, and invoked the act's stay-out provision until the resolution of the litigation.
 * Argued: Jan. 17, 2002**
 * Decided: Mar. 5, 2002**
 * Posted By: Joc'Lene Alston**
 * Background:**

The court ruled that the district court satisfactorily showed that their proposed IEP was adequate under the IDEA, because the school authorities were better suited to determine educational policy. The court also ruled that the hearing officer did no wrong in failing to consider whether the placement was the "least restrictive environment." The court also contended that Beth's placement into the ELS classroom satisfied the FAPE Provision. The court's rational was to leave the selection of educational policy and methods where they traditionally resided- with state and local officials.
 * Decision and Rational:**

Teachers should be aware of the challenges that children with abilities face and should make the environment for students with disabilities as comfortable and accommodating as possible. Teachers should make sure that they are aware of the tools and learning aids that are provided by the district to help with challenges that these children face. School districts are also important in making decisions that are more appropriate for the children's education. Parents should be more willing to work with teachers and staff about their child's disabilities.
 * Impact on Teaching:**

District courts, not school authorities, are better suited to determine educational policy.
 * True or False:**